Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX Philadelphia Subdivision clearances

This refers back to the post 2 days ago 'OOPS measure once, cut twice'. The same evening I tried to start a thread more accurately titled 'New DE road bridge too low for double stacks. I do not read Trainorders every day and that post did not catch my eye because it was not specific. Then the Trainorders content cops deleted it saying the subject had already been posted. But they were wrong because my post covered some facts not mentioned in that 'OOPS' thread and as far as I can see has not been mentioned in any response to it. The most critical fact is that the Philadelphia Sub cannot handle double stacks due to the restrictive clearance of Howard St tunnel in Baltimore and Darby tunnel near Philadelphia. Darby tunnel cannot even accommodate enclosed auto racks. I have engineering articles that state that the Howard St tunnel, which is appx 7000 feet long, has sewer lines below it that are over 100 years old and there are places where the auto racks that do pass thru it are just inches below the slab that holds the light rail line in Howard Street above. Up until now it has always been stated that CSX has not yet found an engineering solution to Howard Street tunnel and was not part of their long range plans for double stacks in the Mid-Atlantic. If that is true why should my Delaware tax dollars fix a bridge for double stacks on a main line that cannot handle them? I live a mile from this bridge and use it almost every day.

So that begs the question 'Has CSX found and engineering solution to make Howard Street tunnel accept double stacks?' My post was seeking responses from others that might know. But it was deleted. I hope this message is not deleted too. I just heard CSX has found a solution, and a price tag was mentioned. Here are my responses to some things in the previous post. The track speed at the subject bridge is 50 mph, and lowering the track would create a permanent slow order, and Landenberg Interlocking is about 1/4 mile east and it would leave a shallow ballast section in a cut and might have drainage issues. Boone tunnel in Darby is only 626 feet long, and lowering the track there might be a solution because it is a half mile from where 30 mph speed starts at the SEPTA trolley crossing. It is also possible this tunnel could be day-lighted if residents above agreed and were well compensated.

Legacy Conrail built a bathtub underneath the NEC in North Bergen NJ, specifically to accommodate double stacks and auto racks.  The former Erie Northern Railroad passed under the NEC, just west of the west portal to the North River tunnels. The NEC couldn't be raised, and the Erie couldn't be lowered.

So, they built a concrete lined section several hundred feet long which allows double stacks, auto racks and all sorts of cargo to pass under.  But, there is a full scale pumping facility, which is needed to pump out the water which almost immediately collects. The track level is several feet below the swamp level and below the water table for most of the year.  It can be done, but it isn't cheap.

(The New York Central used a combination of its 69th street yard, its Weehawken tunnel, and its Ridgefield auto ramps to avoid the problem. CR needed to provide access to its Trenton line after they gave the tunnel to NJ for the light rail.)

From a month and a half ago:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,4009181,4009685#msg-4009685



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/16 12:38 by darkcloud.

Lackawanna 484; yes I know about the 'tub' on the Northern Branch / Running Track as Conrail called them. I know I rode thru it at least once in a Conrail office car train. Don't know what CSX calls them now as my CSX Albany Div TT is 15 years old. This engineering solution works here because the speed limit in my resources is only 15 mph. That allows grades to decrease or increase in a much shorter distance. I do not think that the 'tub' idea will work at our local bridge. That is because the speed limit for freights (and intermodals do it) is 50 mph. The location is in a 30 foot deep cut; 1/2 mile East is Landenberg Intk where land is essentially level and less that 1/2 mile west is a bridge over Red Clay Creek.....which actually has a small waterfall under it.

Darkcloud; yes I went back and looked at that post and I even commented on it! Forgot I did. (yard work, which I hate, has resumed and it tends to erase any useful memory since it is so mundane. And she will not let me pay for a service that can do it in 30 minutes verses my 2-3 hours because the grass clippings may get in her flower beds which will be dead by mid-August) But the cost I heard very recently from a CSX source is much higher than your article. So I'd like to know if anyone on here has more recent details about what CSX has discovered. Personally I feel a rail multi-carrier trench corridor through Baltimore several miles long would solve a lot of problems for the public, passenger rail riders, freight shippers and all three railroads in Baltimore.

Depending on how logisitically convenient it is, the idea of a freight/passenger trench through Baltimore certainly sounds like an important improvement. Both routes need to be modernized.

John,

I sent u this article. Cost has plunged to fix Howard Street Tunnel. Yes it would be a single track tunnel but it is a start.  If they get the Federal funds, I bet this project starts in 2018. CSX and State of MD have already committed dollars. I bet this happens.
Bruce


Maryland seeks $155 million from feds to clear freight bottleneck beneath Baltimore

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-double-stack-plan-20160414-story.html

 



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/16 05:09 by brfriedm.

That's a great article, thanks for sharing it.  If this tunnel cuts truck traffic through Baltimore neighborhoods, that will be an additional health benefit.

The article mentioned a rail line through Port Covington mixed use development.  Is that a MARC or light rail project?

late response due to big CSX trains and yard work. I think the $155 million CSX seeks from MD in the last ref which I could not open is the same one in the earlier post several weeks ago. I do not think $155 mil is the total cost for making Howard St tunnel clear stacks but it is now less than around $1 billion previously thought. So what is the new total cost to make Howard St tunnel in Balto. clear stacks. I have heard $660 million total from an inside source. What do you know?

Used to be that tunnel couldn't handle enclosed autoracks either.  The Automotive Marketing Group "paid" for the initial lowering of the floor using sleds and plows to undercut (and remove old third rail posts).  At that time (mid 1980s) the tunnel could have been lowered still further to accomodate double stack domestic intermodal, but niether automotive nor intermodal groups would pay for that.  Seems really really short-sided now (did then too), but at the time we (CSX) had merged with Sealand and were concentrating on doublestack intermodal containers (which the tunnel will accomodate to my knowledge) rather than double stack domestic containers. 

The port will be a winner from this project, but the big change (too my mind) is that CSX will be able to compete with NS for I-95 domostic containers to NY-NJ from the Sourth.  Doublestcak to Chanbersburg, PA just donesn't cut it today.

Never heard what the problem with lowering the floor today is, but the rumor was that the subway built later comes too close to the existing floor of the tunnel (from below).  Perhaps the engineering fix involves a structureal way to move the two rail lines closer vertically with less cost.  I don't know.